“The ultimate goal for ‘Let’s Move’ is to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation so that children born today grow up at a healthy weight with better notions of what is healthy, with better habits, who are incorporating exercise into their lives on a more regular basis,” the first lady said at last month’s Childhood Obesity Summit.

The White House now even has its own food garden and hosts an outdoor farmer’s market every Thursday afternoon from May to November, making fresh produce from surrounding farmers available to city families.

Yet just three blocks from the farmer’s market sits a McDonald’s fast food restaurant, just one of the 100 McDonald’s restaurants within 10 miles of Washington, D.C. And just as close sits K Street, home to hundreds of agribusiness, restaurant and beverage industry lobbyists bent on defending their clients from political efforts that could harm profit.

These industries have interests in a variety of issues, from immigration reform to free trade to energy and climate change. It’s a lobby also armed with massive resources to combat another government initiative — fundamental changes in food safety and labeling standards.

Big Agribusiness No Stranger to K Street

When government oversight and stricter standards increase, the costs of production increase for relevant industries. Thus, in the interest of protecting their own bottom line, corporations spend millions to avoid what they believe is unnecessary government intervention.

But in 2009 alone, the American Farm Bureau spent exponentially more — $5.1 million to influence federal legislation. A trade organization for farmers operating at the county, state and national levels, AFB has designated food safety and labeling as a top priority.

The AFB opposed H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, passed by the House last July. The trade group opposed the bill because of a “number of onerous requirements in terms of recordkeeping and traceability,” AFB’s Director of Congressional Relations Kelli Ludlum explained.

Instead, the AFB supports the U.S. Senate version of this legislation, known as the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and introduced in March 2009.

This is a “better approach” according to Ludlum, because it builds on the food safety measures that already exist in the industry, instead of introducing an entirely new system, which “may not be workable.”

According to the congressional summary of the bill, H.R. 2749 provides for greater regulatory powers by the FDA over the national food supply and food providers, an increase the frequency of FDA inspections of food processing plants, expansion of the FDA’s traceback capabilities for when outbreaks do occur, and mandatory recall authority for the FDA. It also requires a $500 registration fee per food processing facility in order to pay for significantly increased inspections.

The congressional summary of the Senate version of the bill, S. 510, states that it will expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate food and grant a mandatory recall authority. However, it does not require as much record keeping and reporting for high-risk facilities and does not provide for a national traceback system.

Ludlum says her organization is committed to food safety, and that “it is not good business to put unsafe food in the marketplace.”

Ludlum calls food safety a “marketing issue,” stating that the goal is to “market safe and nutritious products for American families.”

Currently, she explains, there is much inconsistency in food safety standards; each retailer has their own safety guidelines and the farmers must conform to different standards “depending on who you’re producing for.”

There are basic guidelines that the Food and Drug Administration requires, but “some go beyond that,” which can be a “burden” for farmers. This minimum requirement that the FDA establishes is favorable for the AFB, for the sake of “simplicity and consistency.”

As for what this minimum requirement will be, the AFB will continue to keep a close eye on Capitol Hill, Ludlum said.

Trade Groups Monitor Legislation

The National Restaurant Association is another top lobbying interest on S. 510. A trade organization comprised of member establishments including everything from fast food to fine dining, the National Restaurant Association spent $2.9 million in lobbying in 2009.

“S. 510 is our preference,” explains spokeswoman Sue Hensley, “because it recognizes the unique relationship between the restaurant and the supply chain, without an unnecessary burden on restaurant operators.”

Hensley says that restaurants would “face challenges trying to comply” with the strict traceability and record keeping provisions in the House bill, and thus the National Restaurant Association has spent money to lobby in support of the Senate bill. Less stringent requirements would alleviate the “pressure on small business,” which Hensley points out are 70 percent of the industry.

It appears many organizations in the agriculture industry agree with the AFB and the National Restaurant Association: they have concerns about the strictness of FDA regulations in the House Food Safety Enhancement Act and are using lobbying cash to get their message across.

Reinforcing many of these concerns is the testimony of Pamela G. Bailey, president and chief executive officer of the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, who recently spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health regarding the House Food Safety Enhancement Act.

Although Bailey states that food safety is important in terms of “consumer confidence,” she notes that “traceability will not always add value” and that the “cost and feasibility of requiring every manufacturer to maintain the full pedigree of every ingredient in every food may outweigh the benefits.”

She also notes that the GMA is “concerned about the size and purpose of significant new [registration] fees.”

The GMA spent $3.2 million on lobbying in 2009.

A statement from Thomas E. Stenzel, resident and chief executive officer of United Fresh Produce Association prepared for the House Energy and Commerce Committee also asserts that the legislation should set an “overall goal,” instead of “overly prescriptive mandates” for traceability.

The United Fresh Produce Association spent $1 million in 2009, advocating for, among other issues, less strict regulations to decrease the burden on producers.

The industry’s major lobbying players generally prefer the Senate version, the FDA Food Modernization Act, which has less record-keeping and mandatory safety requirements, and does not contain a traceability program.

Ultimately, it is the FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that is in charge of enforcing the legislative regulations on the agriculture and restaurant industries.

However, a closer look at the FDA reveals a close relationship between FDA personnel and private sector professionals that represent big agricultural companies. Sometimes, these are even the same person, as government staffers go through Washington’s “revolving door” and land at in the private sector with interests before government, or vice versa.

For instance, Michael Taylor, former vice president of public policy at agricultural technology supplier Monsanto and former attorney for Monsanto, was appointed senior adviser to the FDA commissioner in 2009.

As senior adviser, Taylor will be responsible for implementing food safety legislation.

New York Senator Proves a Nutrition Ally

So how will the first lady’s efforts stand up against the cost-cutting and marketing interests of the agriculture and restaurant association, whose advocates are clearly embedded in both the legislative and enforcement process?

Michelle Obama has targeted schools as the best starting point, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), pictured right, has taken up the cause alongside her.

Gillibrand is currently planning to introduce legislation regarding a national ban of trans fats, and she may attach it to the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act for which the first lady is advocating.

“Schools aren’t getting all the information they need from the federal government to keep our kids safe from tainted products. Food items that are being pulled from grocery store shelves across the country are still being served to millions of school children,” Gillibrand said recently in a press release.

She also explains that in her legislation, “any school that receives federal reimbursements would be required to remove food containing trans fat from the school.”

The bill, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate, will amend and update the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 with national school lunch nutrition standards.

And how are the industries reacting?

According to Hensley of the National Restaurant Association, the restaurant industry has recognized the ban of trans fats as a “real trend in the marketplace” and is already “working with the supply chain to find trans fat-free options.” She also emphasizes the work that her organization has been doing to lead an industry-wide coalition in support of “one uniform national standard” for “comprehensive nutritional labeling” on restaurant menus.

In March, beverage giant PepsiCo received positive publicity for its initiative to remove full-calorie sweetened drinks from schools by 2012. At the same time, processed food giant Kraft Foods announced that it will decrease the amount of salt in its products by an average of 10 percent over the next two years.

Whether this is a significant improvement is debated, but it is clear that the agriculture and restaurant industries are acknowledging and reacting to increased nutritional awareness in consumers.

And it seems to align with Obama’s words from the Childhood Obesity Summit: “We have to help parents and empower consumers by encouraging companies to offer healthier options and by providing more customer-friendly labels so that people can figure out what’s healthy and what isn’t.”

This project also coincides with ever-increasing national awareness about nutrition and healthy living. Local farming, agricultural sustainability, and healthier school lunches have all recently increased their national profiles with the help of non-profits, parent organizations, television shows, documentaries and extensive literature.

But if Gillibrand and the first lady are to take on the power of K Street, lawmakers will still have to navigate substantial corporate interests when making decisions about the strictness of regulations and standards for the Child Nutrition Act.

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.